They absolutely did! Let's go through that one sentence clause by clause.
> i'm still not convinced the vaccines were a net positive
...which is utterly ridiculous. The vaccines have clearly saved tens of millions of lives by any reasonable assessment.
> especially for the sub 60 cohort when looking at the actual stats
..."especially", so not only the sub-60 cohort, but to a greater degree for them. Looking at "the actual stats", so should be verifiable, but still no evidence for that. And there won't be: the benefits very clearly outweigh the negatives for under-60s.
> - the risks are higher from the myocarditis than from actual Covid, at least in the younger pop.
"At least" in the unspecified "younger pop". But this is only true if you chuck a bunch of qualifiers in there.
If you want to argue that the risk of myocarditis is higher from the vaccine than from covid in, say, under-35s, then I don't think that is true in general, but it gets a bit less clear (and there are other risks from the virus than just myocarditis). But if you are going to argue that then why talk about the "sub 60 cohort"?
> You called bullshit on a specific statement in the original post - vaccine myocaditis being more dangerous than covid myocaditis for some people - and asked for a citation
No, I most certainly did not. You can read what I wrote by moving your eyes a couple of paragraphs up. I called bullshit on "especially for the sub 60 cohort when looking at the actual stats".
Nobody was wrong. It's certainly something to pay attention to. Same as the problems with blood clots in young women.
The original post you replied to said:
> i'm still not convinced the vaccines were a net positive - especially for the sub 60 cohort when looking at the actual stats - the risks are higher from the myocarditis than from actual Covid, at least in the younger pop.
They had that part in there that said "at least in the younger population". They didn't say the sub 60 cohort only, like you quoted.
> It seems odd to pick that one outlier from the article, which generally concludes the opposite
You called bullshit on a specific statement in the original post - vaccine myocaditis being more dangerous than covid myocaditis for some people - and asked for a citation. I gave you one. The study proving this has been around since last August.
The fact that is an outlier does seem to confuse some people. Risk assessment is not everyone's strong suit.
Many people got vaccinated before this study came out. They had to make decisions while data was still coming in, data on the worst vaccine side effects like myocarditis and blood clots, data on covid, all this data for different vaccines and demographic groups and co-morbidities, data coming from multiple sources, some better than others, all of this developing over time, and new data still being collected.
> The extra risk seemed to be less than 1 in 10,000, and was easily mitigated by offering younger people a different vaccine.
Why did you call bullshit when this backs up what the original poster said? The odds of a younger person dying are low - from the vaccine or from covid. They took this into account when they made their decision, which sounds reasonable. They said they got vaccinated. I don't get what you are arguing against?